Judgment

Mr. Justice H.S. Madaan, J.

In nutshell facts of the case are that plaintiff Dilmeet Kaur @ Dato, a married daughter of Gurdit Singh through power of attorney Jaideep Singh Dhillon son of Gurdeep Singh Dhillon resident of Village Chabhal Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran had brought a suit against Daljit Kaur, another married daughter of Gurdit Singh, resident of village Sabhra, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar, now District Tarn Taran seeking a declaration that plaintiff is co-sharer in possession of land measuring 84 kanals 17 marlas i.e. 1/2 share each of land measuring 169 kanals 13 marlas and 50 kanal 18 marlas as detailed in head note (a) and (b) of the plaint situated at Village Sabhra, Tehsil Patti and that the defendant has no right or interest in the suit land and as a consequential relief, the plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner and as alternative relief plaintiff prayed for joint possession of suit land.

2. As per version of the plaintiff the suit land was originally owned and possessed by Sh. Gurdit Singh son of Sunder Singh resident of Village Sabhra. Gurdit Singh was married with Smt. Charan Kaur and from that wedlock he was blessed with a daughter namely Dilmeet Kaur alias Dato-plaintiff. Swaran Kaur alleged herself to be wife of Gurdit Singh whereas defendant No. 1 Daljit Kaur claimed to be daughter of Gurdit Singh from womb of Swaran Kaur. Gurdit Singh has expired. Swaran Kaur has also expired. Initially she was arrayed as defendant No. 2 but after her death her name was struck off from the memo of parties.

3. According to plaintiff defendant No. 1 Daljit Kaur has no right or concern with estate left behind by Gurdit Singh but she alleged that she has got executed a sale deed as well as a Will from Gurdit Singh. According to plaintiff if any sale deed or Will are proved then these documents are illegal, null and void and must have been prepared by such defendant in connivance with scribe and attesting witnesses. The sale deed must be paper transaction because Gurdit Singh was not in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of alleged Will. According to plaintiff she requested the defendant several times to concede her claim and not to alienate the suit land to any other person but to no effect. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

4. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections to wit that suit is not maintainable because plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the suit has not been properly valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction; the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. State Bank of India Branch, Sabhra. On merits the defendant admitted that suit land in ownership of Gurdit Singh earlier but added that Sh. Gurdit Singh during his lifetime had sold the land measuring 50 kanals 18 marlas detailed in head note (b) of the plaint to defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/- vide sale deed dated 2.12.1983 and mutation was also sanctioned on basis of the said sale deed. Further Sh. Gurdit Singh had sold land measuring 39 kanals 19 marla comprising of khasra numbers 254//21,22,23,25/1,25/2 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide sale deed dated 6.4.1993. In that way at the time of his death Sh. Gurdit Singh was owner of land measuring 78 kanals 16 marlas only. The defendant denied that plaintiff has 1/2 share in the suit land.

5. According to defendant Sh. Gurdit Singh had tw